rishi2377 wrote:
Anand revealed his team of seconds with Peter Leko the new name in it.
Carlsen responded: “I appreciate Mr. Anand’s openness about his team. Alas! I am not going to return the favour,” Carlsen said.
he shouldn't have done it.
Anad shows his cards, Carlsen refuses
Sort:
Lol
richie_and_oprah wrote:
Irinasdaddy wrote:
Why did these title matches become team vs. team anyways? Whatever happened to one on one? Prepare your own openings and make your own moves.
about 70 years ago .... fischer had a team (lombardy & evans) when he played spassky as well .... this has been the norm in high level matches pretty much since high level wc matches started
I think the last WC match where it was really one on one was Alekhine - Bogolyubov 1934. In 1935 Euwe had Maroczy as a second and Alekhine had Landau. There are so many GM's now and so little money around that strong GM's in the 2650 range make their livings from seconding the 2700 guys.
Peter-Pepper wrote:
It's a bit late now for Carlsen to use the information anyway.
Not really. Knowing who the seconds are hints at what openings Anand might have paid extra attention to, and Carlsen's team could still devote additional time to those openings. The match lasts for most of November, so there's plenty of time to be better prepared later in the match for some openings.
Of course, Anand knows this, and he wouldn't have released the information if it was a net benefit to Carlsen, so perhaps Leko didn't contribute much in the way of opening knowledge.
If Leko was mainly on the team for his positional insight, Anand releasing the information could be a psychological tactic intended to convey the message that they have deeply analyzed Carlsen's positional play and will be giving him more of a fight there than he's ever had before.
Carlsens going to have to avoid 1.e4 this match because it will be met with 1... c6!! from Anand 0-1. So instead I hope Anand adopts a new opening, the KID, for playing against 1.d4.
Yes, Anand has to be a master of psychological games also. He is, after all, the world chess champion. Its kind of like he's throwing info out there so Carlsen will know only certain things and Carlsen will be like "I know that you know I know. Then Anand will be like "oh yeah? So now I know that you know that I know you know........ ya know?"
Bring on the psychological chess games!
Ya know?
Nov 7, 2013
0
#29
Wasn't Leko Kramnik's second when he fought Anand for the title in 2008? Sounds nice to have somebody who did exhaustive weakness analysis to help Kramnik take you down now be on your team! :)
Nov 7, 2013
0
#30
Shivsky wrote:
Wasn't Leko Kramnik's second when he fought Anand for the title in 2008? Sounds nice to have somebody who did exhaustive weakness analysis to help Kramnik take you down now be on your team! :)
Yeah, he was! And you have a very nice point. But the thing is, Kramnik's preparation had been ripped apart by Anand's team in that match, so judging from the result, maybe he is not the best second around. I'm very surprised.
Nov 7, 2013
0
#31
As Black, Carlsen will play Nimzo-Indian/Queen's Indian defenses against 1.d4 and Spanish against 1.e4.
As white, Carlsen could play almost anything.
Seconds help with match preparation, analysis of openings, and psychological training. There was an excellent book describing the world championships from the point of view of one Kramnik's seconds, Yevgeny Bareev. Check out From London to Elista if you're interested in seeing what the role of a second is really like.
Nov 7, 2013
0
#32
philidor_position wrote:
Shivsky wrote:
Wasn't Leko Kramnik's second when he fought Anand for the title in 2008? Sounds nice to have somebody who did exhaustive weakness analysis to help Kramnik take you down now be on your team! :)
Yeah, he was! And you have a very nice point. But the thing is, Kramnik's preparation had been ripped apart by Anand's team in that match, so judging from the result, maybe he is not the best second around. I'm very surprised.
Well might just be Hobson's choice when it comes to finding people from the once-enemy camp! Who else was successful at team-based prep-work in taking Anand down ... Kramnik from Team Kasparov back 1995? :)
It would be interesting to hear post-match if Kramnik had been asked.
There is one thing that youth usually lacks, and that is guile. Guile is a key factor in match play. Guile is acquired painstakingly through experience in the school of hard knocks.
Revealing the identity of his seconds is a form of misdirection one aspect of guile.
I am aware of many factors for this match, but guile is an advantage that I have to give the check mark to Anand.
Nov 7, 2013
0
#34
Shivsky wrote:
philidor_position wrote:
Shivsky wrote:
Wasn't Leko Kramnik's second when he fought Anand for the title in 2008? Sounds nice to have somebody who did exhaustive weakness analysis to help Kramnik take you down now be on your team! :)
Yeah, he was! And you have a very nice point. But the thing is, Kramnik's preparation had been ripped apart by Anand's team in that match, so judging from the result, maybe he is not the best second around. I'm very surprised.
Well might just be Hobson's choice when it comes to finding people from the once-enemy camp! Who else was successful at team-based prep-work in taking Anand down ... Kramnik from Team Kasparov back 1995? :)
It would be interesting to hear post-match if Kramnik had been asked.
I didn't know that, cool info. Yeah, many details I would like to know as well.
I have it on good authority that Carlsen's seconds will be Michael Basman and Johnny Hector.
i thought the first game is in two days on saturday
rooperi wrote:
I have it on good authority that Carlsen's seconds will be Michael Basman and Johnny Hector.
that would be pretty amazing :/
rooperi wrote:
I have it on good authority that Carlsen's seconds will be Michael Basman and Johnny Hector.
seriously? Don't know abt Hector but if Michael Basman is there then we are going to see some bizzare openings :P
Why did these title matches become team vs. team anyways? Whatever happened to one on one? Prepare your own openings and make your own moves.
That's like moaning at a football team for having a coach. Why can't the players decide on the tactics themselves?
What a truly pathetic analogy. Football is designed to be a team game. In that instance, with 11 people on a side at all times, a coach is necessary. Chess is a one on one board game. At best, I'd take your analogy and say that the one player IS the coach, and the pieces are the players on the football field.
All players in individual sports have coaches too, that's irrelevant. They design a strategy, but if you think that it means they don't have to think for themselves, you don't understand chess.